How much money was awarded in case 5167031?

Cleaning: $149.50 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $312.00 awarded to landlord; Deck And Bricks: $57.50 awarded to landlord; Remove Oil Stain: $97.75 awarded to landlord; Walls In Lounge And Dining Rooms: $640.16 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5167031?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5167031?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11866534-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

How much money was awarded in case 5167031?

Cleaning: $149.50 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $312.00 awarded to landlord; Deck And Bricks: $57.50 awarded to landlord; Remove Oil Stain: $97.75 awarded to landlord; Walls In Lounge And Dining Rooms: $640.16 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5167031?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5167031?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11866534-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 5167031 — Property damage

Q: What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5167031 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

Tenantcheck Insights

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5167031 — net $1,256.91 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lawns and Garden work	$312.00	Lawns and Garden work
Carpet Cleaning	$149.50	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: Remove oil stain	$97.75	Repairs: Remove oil stain
Repairs: Deck and bricks	$57.50	Repairs: Deck and bricks
Repairs: Walls in lounge and dining rooms	$640.16	Repairs: Walls in lounge and dining rooms
Net award	$1,256.91
Bond	$2,720.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,256.91

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the parties’ names and identifying details.

[The tenant/s] to pay [The landlord/s] $1,256.91 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.

The remainder of the claims are dismissed.

The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $2,720.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: [The landlord/s]: $1,256.91 [The tenant/s]: $1,463.09

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which took place by teleconference.

The landlord has applied for compensation, refund of the bond, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

The tenant has applied for refund of the bond and costs due to the landlord not going to mediation.

The tenant rented a 4-bedroom home from the landlord. The tenancy began in February 2022 and ended on 7 December 2024. Standard of proof and evidence

In general the onus, or burden, of proving a particular claim rests with the party who is making that claim. The standard of proof, or level of evidence, required is “on the balance of probabilities”. In other words, the party proving the claim must establish with evidence that their claim is “more probable than not” or “more likely than not”.

Both parties have filed extensive evidence in this matter and I have considered this together with the verbal evidence and submissions given today. The tenant also requested that the landlord file the inspection reports done during the tenancy and these were not before me today. However, as my decision relates to end of tenancy matters in this case the relevant reports are the inspection done prior to the tenancy commencing and the inspection done at the end of the tenancy, and these have been filed.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant’s responsibilities as set out in section 40(1)(e)(i)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) are as follows: (i)quit the premises; and (ii)remove all his or her goods from the premises; and (iii)leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish; and (iv)return to the landlord all keys, and security or pass cards or other such devices, provided by the landlord for the use of the tenant; and (v)leave in or at the premises all other chattels provided by the landlord for the use of the tenant.

It is commonly expected that the tenant will have completed their end of tenancy responsibilities prior to handing over the keys and returning the premises to the landlord.

The landlord claimed that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and that the premises required garden work, cleaning and carpet cleaning.

The tenant disputed this and stated that following the end of the tenancy when the landlord raised issues he arranged for a contractor to attend the premises to address the matters raised. There was some dispute in evidence about the detail of this as the tenant was overseas at the time and the communication appeared to be left largely to the contractors and the property manager.

There was no evidence provided by the tenant of the condition the property was left in at exit or of the work done by his contractors. I am therefore left to decide this based on the entry and exit inspection photographs provided by the landlord, the email communication between the parties, the quotes and invoices provided and the verbal evidence of the parties.

The RTA does not state what "reasonably clean and tidy" means and it is not always easy to define. However, a tenant is not required to leave a property immaculate or even in a condition where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. What is required is that premises including the kitchen and bathroom fittings are cleaned and all personal items removed and the exterior gardens and grounds are left reasonably tidy.

It is common that a landlord wishes to clean to an extra level so that they can re-tenant the premises, that is a business decision that a landlord makes at their cost.

The landlord has provided photographs taken two days after the tenancy ended and quotes and invoices for work done.

Having considered the evidence, I find the following: (a)The landlord has proved on the balance of probabilities that the exterior of the premises was not left reasonably clean and tidy. The exit inspection photographs taken 2 days after the tenancy ended show the gardens overgrown and weeds throughout. The tenant advised that work was done prior to the tenancy ending but I find that further work was required to leave the exterior reasonably clean and tidy. The landlord seeks reimbursement of $416.00 for the clean up. The invoice provided is dated 18 January 2025 but the landlord stated that the amount is the same as the quote obtained on 30 December 2024 which was also provided. As this quote was obtained three weeks after the tenancy ended and there would have been further growth over that period, I have discounted 25 percent from the invoice and order the tenant to reimburse $312.00. (b)The landlord has proved on the balance of probabilities that the carpets in two bedrooms and the hallway required cleaning. Photographs were provided and the landlord advised that when the tenant’s contractors came, they did not have equipment to do a carpet clean. The landlord provided an invoice for $241.50 dated March 2025 but quoted the tenant $130 plus GST in December 2024. The landlord revised the claim to seek $130 plus GST which totals $149.50, and this amount is ordered. (c)The landlord has failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the tenant is liable to reimburse the house cleaning invoice of $667.00 for the following reasons. The premises were cleaned by the tenant at the end of the tenancy and this is evident from the exit inspection photographs. The landlord claimed that further cleaning was required including to the rangehood filter, a kitchen cupboard and the stove, the shower box and some cobwebs and marks on walls and provided photographs of these areas. The parties agreed that the tenant’s contractors had attended the premises after the tenancy ended to do further cleaning as requested by the landlord. Neither party filed evidence of what further cleaning was done. The landlord advised that some but not all of the issues were addressed. The landlord arranged a full house clean and provided an invoice dated March 2025. Contractors and the landlord had been in the premises since the tenancy ended. Having carefully considered the evidence I find that there is insufficient evidence to prove that the tenants are liable to reimburse the landlord for a full house clean done three months after the tenancy ended.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.

Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.

Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.

The landlord claims that damage was caused during the tenancy. Each claim will be considered in turn.

Oil stain on deck – the landlord claimed that the deck was damaged by an oil stain. Entry and exit inspection photographs were provided. I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the damage was caused during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The tenant stated that he was not sure how the damage was caused. The tenant has not disproved liability for the damage. The landlord provided an invoice for the repair in the sum of $97.95 and this amount is ordered as sought.

Paint on deck and brickwork – the landlord claimed that there was paint damage to the wooden deck and writing on the brickwork. Entry and exit inspection photographs were provided. The tenant accepted the paint damage to the wooden deck and stated that the writing on the bricks was chalk. There was insufficient evidence provided regarding the substance on the bricks but I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the paint damage to the deck was caused during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. The landlord provided an amount to repair the damage in the sum of $57.50 and this amount is ordered.

Damage to walls – the landlord claimed that there was damage to walls in the lounge, dining room and at the bottom of the stairs. Entry and exit inspection photographs were provided. The tenant disputed the claims in particular the claim regarding damage to the wall at the base of the stairs. Having considered the evidence in particular the photographs I find that the landlord has proved on the balance of probabilities that there was damage to the paintwork in the lounge and dining room at the end of the tenancy but the photograph in respect of the wall damage at the base of the stairs was inconclusive and the damage is not proved to the required standard. The landlord provided an invoice for the repairs in the sum of $960.25. As two of the three claims are proved I have ordered reimbursement of two thirds of the invoice in the sum of $640.16,

Damage to garage wall – the landlord sought reimbursement for the cost of repairing a hole in the garage wall. The tenant claimed that the damage was present at the commencement of the tenancy. Having considered the entry and exit photographs I find that the landlord has failed to prove the claim on the balance of probabilities as the garage wall has damage prior to the tenancy commencing.

Damage to stairs – the landlord claimed that the stairs were damaged during the tenancy. The landlord advised that the stairs are laminate. Entry and exit photographs were provided showing three chips to the capping at the edge of three stairs. The tenant disputed the claims on the basis that there was water ingress in the stairway and downstairs area which contributed to the damage. Having considered the evidence I find that as the chips are small and occur at the edge of the step where people walk in normal use of the stairs, they are not more than fair wear and tear. Therefore, this claim is dismissed.

The amounts ordered are less than the landlord’s insurance excesses for the claims. Bond

The bond belongs to the tenant unless the landlord is successful in a claim against the bond. As the landlord has had some success with their claims the bond will be split and refunded as ordered in Order 4 above. Costs

The tenant sought costs on the basis that the landlord refused mediation. The landlord denied this and stated that the matter was never referred to mediation by Tenancy Services.

The Tribunal has no power to award costs to or against any party to proceedings before it except in certain cases. The Tribunal may order costs where, in the opinion of the Tribunal, the matter in dispute ought reasonably to have been settled before the Tenancy Mediator but that the party against whom the order is to be made refused, without reasonable excuse, to take part in proceedings before a Tenancy Mediator or acted in any such proceedings in a contemptuous or improper manner: There is no record on file that the matter was referred to mediation.

Given the history of previous proceedings between these parties and the number of claims filed by the landlord I do not consider that these proceedings ought to have reasonably settled before a Mediator and therefore find that there are no grounds to award costs. Filing fee/Suppression

The Tribunal may on the application of any party or on its own initiative make a suppression order, having regard to the interests of the parties and to the public interest. Section 95A (4) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. Both parties have sought suppression, and both have had some success with their applications. Having considered the factors in this case the Tribunal finds that the interests of the parties outweigh the public interest in their names being published and grants suppression as sought.

As both parties have had some success with their applications, I make no order for either party to reimburse the other’s filing fee.

Order

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5167031 — net $1,256.91 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lawns and Garden work	$312.00	Lawns and Garden work
Carpet Cleaning	$149.50	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs: Remove oil stain	$97.75	Repairs: Remove oil stain
Repairs: Deck and bricks	$57.50	Repairs: Deck and bricks
Repairs: Walls in lounge and dining rooms	$640.16	Repairs: Walls in lounge and dining rooms
Net award	$1,256.91
Bond	$2,720.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,256.91